If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Nothing in BSD will prevent closing down. Everything in GPL is designed to keep seperate from closed source.

BSD is not free software, it is "public software", public domain plus small copyright notice.

This is the single difference that results in 3 clause vs 5 page license difference.

Pay attention to MacOSX, its in essence a stolen BSD.

And BSD crowd is trolling Linux, how them should be desktop OS too and how Linux prevents it. This is ridiculous they don't storm Apple for some things to put back! They are what their license is.

So, the BSD license gives you the FREEDOM to do whatever you want with the code (like closing it) and yet is not FREE software.
The GPL FORCES you to stick with a license and an 'ideology' and yet it is considered FREE software.
The irony...

I wonder always how much hate people are willing to capture for their actions for so little gain.

I mean ok if you are Microsoft and make much money with beeing evil, I can understand it, but does Adobe really makes (much/any) Money from keeping the flash player closed source? I mean its not only the classic 5% Linux guys who hate them extremly, its also all the Android users at least they should ^^ and apple hates them. Because they releases the biggest crap ever.

I mean if the flash player would be even somewhat resourcefriendly by playing a 720p file, but they do not only suck in giving no free client out for a tool thats free of charge. they even are light-years away from having a resourcefriendly client.

So I wish to next christmess to them aids or something like that. Unbelivable how much suffering someone can produce "just for fun" for millions of people, because they can.

Nothing in BSD will prevent closing down. Everything in GPL is designed to keep seperate from closed source.

BSD is not free software, it is "public software", public domain plus small copyright notice.

This is the single difference that results in 3 clause vs 5 page license difference.

Pay attention to MacOSX, its in essence a stolen BSD.

And BSD crowd is trolling Linux, how them should be desktop OS too and how Linux prevents it. This is ridiculous they don't storm Apple for some things to put back! They are what their license is.

Please, you're making a fool out of yourself.
Again, the BSD license certainly does not promote closed source software, and no, you can't "close it down", that's ridiculous.
You can't change the license of a BSD licensed project to something proprietary, that's just not possible. LLVM will always be free software.
It's just that companies like Apple can take it, modify it how they want and distribute it how they like. Thats freedom, you know. However, that doesn't mean you have to pay for the original LLVM, which is still free.

And OS X isn't a stolen BSD, Apple just took parts(like the network stack) from FreeBSD- and guess what, FreeBSD people are fine with that, only hardcore GPL people seem to be offended of this.
You have to realize that people who chose a BSD-style license may not think how you do, have different views on things, and thus prefer a BSD-style license over a GPL one.
I believe you're smart enough to accept that people are not always like you and make different decisions.

I would like to have a full OSS setup, but the 3 monitors make that difficult.
[\img]http://www.rdox.info/01.jpg[\/img][\img]http://www.rdox.info/02.jpg[\/img][\img]http://www.rdox.info/8.jpg[\/img][\img]http://www.rdox.info/03.jpg[\/img]

Delicious spam you got there!
... and on a lot of your posts (if not all, didn't bother checking).

So, the BSD license gives you the FREEDOM to do whatever you want with the code (like closing it) and yet is not FREE software.
The GPL FORCES you to stick with a license and an 'ideology' and yet it is considered FREE software.
The irony...

They are both free, but in different ways.

BSD licenses primarily ensure the freedom of the developer to do whatever they want with the code.

GPL licenses primarily give freedom to the user of the software to do whatever they want with the code.

Different people will have different priorities when it comes to these two.

Only if you cherry pick features, if you look at language support and compability GCC easily comes out at top. Clang has areas in which it shines, particularly diagnostics but it's nowhere near a full drop-in replacement for the GCC frontend.

Originally Posted by elanthis

GCC has tons of cruft and is difficult to work with; this has led to a general problem gaining new contributors,

Originally Posted by elanthis

a slow exodus of existing developers

Here you go with unsubstantiated claims only aimed at painting a negative picture, with nothing backing them up. I've seen absolutely no indication of the project GCC losing developers, please point me to some facts.

Originally Posted by elanthis

then evil vile horrible proprietary companies might use one or the other with a proprietary tool.

This is exactly what happened, Steve Jobs when running NeXT tried to use GCC as a backend for their proprietary ObjC frontend, which he legally couldn't and since he needed GCC this is how it ended up with ObjC support. Yes, proprietary companies want to use open source (NeXT and later Apple built their software on GCC long before Clang and LLVM existed or where even useable), but few of them have the decency to give back except when legally compelled to as history shows. This technical barrier has been alleviated by the plugin system which GCC now supports.

Originally Posted by elanthis

Clang, on the other hand, was designed with full knowledge of the fact that the absolute least important thing that a compiler frontend can be used for in this day and age is the actual compilation.

Clang was developed because Apple wanted a frontend to complement LLVM which was permissively licenced so that they can incorporate it into their proprietary offerings. The key word here is _proprietary_, XCode is proprietary so they want to make use of surrounding tools which allow them to keep their solutions proprietary, like they picked up DTrace and turned it into their proprietary Instruments.

Originally Posted by elanthis

Also, LLVM is possibly going to be faster than GCC in the future.

Certainly possible, it's also just as possible that GCC will improve diagnostics to match and better Clang/LLVM. Meanwhile Clang/LLVM hasn't come closer to GCC in the last couple of releases and judging by the tests I've done with snapshots during the current release cycle (that said, development snapshots are not definitive) GCC 4.8 widens the performance gap even further. (note, I only benchmark X86_64)

Originally Posted by elanthis

Given the rate of change between the two projects, it's quite likely that'll happen,

You base this upon what data?

As for my views on GCC and LLVM/Clang, I like them both. GCC has been and is still my primary compiler toolchain at work and at home, but Clang/LLVM is there aswell and I compile against them both.

But even if you are 'all in' for Clang/LLVM like elanthis obviously is, you'd have to be a f***ing moron to want to see GCC disappear. Yet elanthis has made no secret that in his 'rabid fandom' or if it's 'rabid hatred' he wants GCC gone. (so yes, he is a moron)

Again Apple developed Clang as a frontend to use with their proprietary solutions, they are a proprietary company. The reason they keep siphoning off the BSD projects is because they can use that code in proprietary offerings. This is what leads to my fear with Clang (and in part with LLVM), which is that Apple will eventually stop submitting their enhancements as open source, probably it will start with small things which they say only have relevance against their proprietary solutions like XCode but then it will continue on, simply because Apple is at it's core a proprietary company with lock-in as their model.

So now, if you like Clang/LLVM and want to have it available and developed all in the open then the single biggest thing ensuring that this will remain so is the existance and well-being of an alternative like GCC.

And beyond that, we have the fact that competition is what keeps stagnation away. GCC has had competition in a form from proprietary compiler solutions but obviously having strong competition from another open source compiler will continue to benefit these two projects (and more importantly us users) immensely.

BSD licenses primarily ensure the freedom of the developer to do whatever they want with the code.

GPL licenses primarily give freedom to the user of the software to do whatever they want with the code.

Different people will have different priorities when it comes to these two.

Yes, but the main draw with GPL for developers is that they, as 'recipients' are entitled to enhancements made to their code. This practical advantage is in my opinion the BIG reason why GPL is the most used licence by far, rather than the ideological stance it takes.

I think it also makes a great licence for companies who wants to cooperate with open source on a legally binding even playfield, the large amount of full-time developers paid by companies to work on Linux seems to support my thesis.

On the other hand if you do not want/need/expect any help with developing a piece of software (either because it's 'done' or you have the resources to take it anywhere you want without help) then I think BSD/MIT style licencing is much more appropriate.

Also, some type of software is better suited for certain licences I think, something which is developed as a whole is better suited for GPL than framework/component style code which is better off in a practical sense when licenced permissively or LGPL style.